[Rei Murasame]

GNXP ran a sort of internal poll on "what is race", and separated the geneticists (biologists who are not geneticists were excluded) answers from the non-biologists answers.

Non-biologist results:


Geneticist results:


The blue votes have it.

Note that absolutely no-one among the geneticists believes that it is 'purely a social construct'.

[Political Interest]

So, you're telling me that the people from Syria would be unable to tell that she's not fully Syrian?

It means that she would be considered 'white' in the US sense even though she is a Middle Easterner.

Surely this is evident all around the world depending on the ethnic origin of those who created the society, i.e. Han privilege in China.

Yes of course but most people do not see this. They fail to see that in most countries where an ethnic group have the majority they will be in a privileged position regardless of the country. This is why it is ridiculous to say that 'whites' have some inherent privilege when in most countries the majority ethnic group has this. Furthermore it is possible to even say that many 'whites' in the West do not have this position because of Political Correctness.

White privilege is a American centric idea, and is a dividing tool, which i can only wonder is used by the left to destabilise Western Societies. It goes against the reasons why i "joined" the left when i was younger, because i believed in equal oppourtunities, but branding everyone who is white as being privileged is an idea that can only come from either rich white people or poor black people.
Go to many parts of Eastern Europe, and you will see white poverty, same applies for East Glasgow and many parts of Northern England.

Yes it is an American idea. It was then exported through the English language to the UK and to the rest of Europe and the Western world. Now we have all of these insane ideas about how 'whites' never do anything except through privilege and have no honour. Because of course it is all one big party being 'white', we do not suffer anything. I would love for them to tell my good friend from Ukraine that he comes from a privileged background considering his life story.

White is a color, not a social status.

Yes but according to Politically Correct American liberals it is as well.

If you think "Whiteness" is associated with success and/or development, then you must have some sort of racism built in, I suppose. I don't even see whiteness at all, I see DNA types (but then I'm into DNA studies). I also happen to have a slightlyt longer view, and remember quite well when "whites" were barbarians and agriculture was carried out in the Middle East, Papua New Guinea, the Americas and the Far East by what you guys consider "backwards' brown people", or whatever. Whiteness smacks of the 19th century, this is the 21st, and today we really do know better.

No one here is making such associations but of course the futility of this ridiculous concept means that many do.

This is why i come to the conclusion that critical race theory is merely an attempt to undermine capitalists societies and destroy culture, to make the masses more acceptable to Marxist ideas. Its divisive, the notion of white privlege used by these so called left wingers, is even racist to black people and other ethnicities, as it portrays white people as being the only real adults able to take responsbility for their actions, and instigating all the causes, with the latter always being the passive reciptent.
As i said previously the people pushing the notion of white privlege, are privileged themselves, and lack life experience.

Yes of course. So we must get rid of this idea which was invented in the New World but is not causing us to shoot ourselves in the foot.

It is an American Centric construct, if anything, as European's were living in absolute poverty in the first half of the 20th century, and only recieved "privileges" by fighting in wars, strikes, hard work and rising up to the challenge, nothing was "handed over" to them, and other ethnicities were only introduced to the country in the 1950's and 60's. I still don't understand how someone who truly calls themselves left wing, can advocate affirmative discrimination and make broad generalisations about a race of people.

They are not real left wingers who care about the working class. They tend to be as you said middle class 'whites' who have no life experience and no real personality. They like to think in this way because it affirms their sense of self-righteousness. It is interestingly enough a way to confirm their upper middle class status because to believe in 'white privilege' is a very middle class opinion. Well my family are from a real working class background, truly basic. What privileges did they have?

GNXP ran a sort of internal poll on "what is race", and separated the geneticists (biologists who are not geneticists were excluded) answers from the non-biologists answers.

Non-biologist results:


Geneticist results:


The blue votes have it.

Note that absolutely no-one among the geneticists believes that it is 'purely a social construct'.

No one will deny the existence of race. The trouble is this US idea of 'whiteness' which says that this particular 'white' group have privilege. So we have to get rid of this idea of 'whiteness' and return to an Old World mindset in order to free ourselves.

[onemalehuman]

No one will deny the existence of race. The trouble is this US idea of 'whiteness' which says that this particular 'white' group have privilege. So we have to get rid of this idea of 'whiteness' and return to an Old World mindset in order to free ourselves.

This is priceless. Your interpretation of what US ideas of "whiteness" defines the will of the citizens following the rule of law the leaders of this societal evolution wrote to become the creator the characters ancestors become citizens' performances in the world is but a stage mentality of mind over matter and symbolism more valuable than substance.

That is OLD WORLD mindset just redefined to metaphorically mean something else doing the same functions as usual. State of mind is a terrible thing to waste understanding the real moment when reality can be much more practical in managing this eternal moment.

[Someone5]

wtf? This thread just got super-stupid. Thank you for the pictures soulfly, but your conclusions are ludicrous.

Who is making these claims about whiteness (apart from people here in this thread)? There is no white registry. Who are these people you claim are making claims about who is white and who is not?

White is a color, not a social status.

It's also a social status in lots of countries. A rather fuzzy status, but one nonetheless.

[Rich]

White Supremacism should be seen for what it was a moral technology that allowed for huge value creation. The Christian ideology or Catholic ideology of Western Christendom was essentially an Ascetic Communist ideology that had accommodated it self to the existing and emerging power structures as any religious ideology will tend to do. But it was far less accommodating to slavery than the other major religions. Starting with the Maderias and as Europeans moved out around the world there were huge business opportunities, but traditional values and beliefs stood in the way of exploiting them. White Supremacism was developed by entrepreneurs. White Supremacism and Black chattel slavery is a huge testament to the power of the free market and self reliant individual pioneer. The new racial technology was opposed and hindered by government. The Monarchies of Europe very much empathised the separation between themselves ans the aristocracy on the one hand and all the rest of humanity on the other. For them all subjects tended to be equal regardless of race, or at the very least they minimised racial differences. Tribal subjects would often prove more loyal to the monarchs of Europe than their White subjects. Right from when the Americas were discovered Rulers showed a sentimental concern for the rights of their non Whites subjects and a much lower concern sometimes bordering on disdain for the creation of value. If these monarchs had been head of a modern publicly listed company they'd soon be getting the boot.

Its strange that Libertarians don't talk more about probably the best example of how private enterprise was way way more productive and efficient then government. We hear a lot nonsense about the abolition of slavery, that it was unprofitable. For example that The union had to help out Confederacy to become more profitable by abolishing slavery. If Slavery was so unprofitable why did it require government intervention to get rid of it.

[SE23]

As for the original post,
There is no point in looking deeply into concepts such as "whiteness" and understanding them, because there is no logic involved. Some state side academic who has smoked too much pot and engaged in too much degenerative sexual acts over the years, has resulted them in them actually believing the sh*t that they say; and they get paid money to be "controversial" and more bat sh*t crazy with what they allege, because of the "intellectual" tag which is placed on them.

There are differences in Races of course there are, why else would you have health authorities begging for certain ethnic groups to donate their organs and blood. Aside from this, i prefer to look into the importance of culture, as Thomas Sowell said "the question that should be asked, is not why is there inequality, by why should there be equality ?"

When you are looking at a country such as America especially, that has been comprised from different groups of people from various parts of the world, each with their own specific cultural skill set and norms and values, i.e. the Chinese excellence with science, Germans Piano making, Ashkenazi's excellence with maths. It makes sense why there are different standards.

I have sat through enough lectures, to understand what these professors are trying to say in regards to whiteness. It is a pseudo marxist trick, to associate all the problems in the world, slavery the greatest sin ever created, on the backs of the current so called "hegemonic" group, which is white people. However in denial of races and cultures, as they are relativists, they state that "whiteness" is more of a hegemonic ideal that is evil, oppressive, and inherently racist. They then go on to quack on about power structures, it gets very tedious, when they begin to analyse the linguistics and priotizing of certain words in sentences, to state if that person is racist or not.



The truth of the matter is, slavery has been the oldest trade since humanity itself, it passed through the oriental, african, european, south american civilisations forever and forever. The argument here, is that whites can only be guilty of racism and slavery because they committed the act on the basis of racial supremacy. Again this is false, going through the anthropological cycle of humanity, has shown that other groups always enslaved and massacred other ethnic groups, on the basis of supposed physical differences, supposed differences on the basis of success (i.e. jealousy) or religious/cultural differences. This isn't a new concept.

The difference with the European's, is that they mainly made large profits on the basis of their colonial exploits, built more infrastructure in the colonial areas because of it, and banned the slave trade towards the end of doing all of this.
No one can defend the colonial era on moral grounds, alot of evil had taken place there, however it's naive to assume, that Africa was a representation of the film "the Lion King" before the evil whiteys arrived, or any other part of the world for that matter.

Also lets not get started on Eastern Europeans, who have pretty much been serfs and under authoritarian closed regimes or ensalved by the muslims, for the most course of the last 800 years.